Back
1994 Supreme(Gau) 183
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mr.V. K. KHANNA, C. J. AND S. N. PHUKAN, JJ.
State of Assam and others -Appellant
Versus
Omega Printers and Publishers Private Limited and another -Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 221 of 1994
Decided On : 27-09-1994
S. N. Bhuyan, Advocate General, Assam, A. C. Sarma, Government Advocate, Assam, P. K. Goswami, A. C. Borbora, S. S. Goswami
The State Government does not have the power to regulate the allotment of advertisements to newspapers by reducing the number of advertisements given to a newspaper.
Headnote:
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISEMENT - REGULATION - POWER OF - NEWSPAPER - VIOLATION OF GUIDELINES - POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO REDUCE ADVERTISEMENT - POWER OF REGULATION BY REDUCING ADVERTISEMENT - POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO REMOVE NAME OF NEWSPAPER FROM APPROVED LIST - DISCRIMINATION IN PAYMENT OF PENDING BILLS - COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF ADVERTISEMENT - POWER OF COURT TO GRANT RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company publishing an English daily newspaper, filed a writ petition challenging the reduction in government advertisements allotted to its newspaper. The petitioner claimed that the reduction was arbitrary and discriminatory and violated its fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The State Government contended that the reduction was a measure of regulation as the petitioner's newspaper was not following the guidelines laid down for the release of government advertisements.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government has the power to remove the name of a newspaper from the approved list of newspapers entitled to receive advertisements if it is not following the guidelines. However, the Court held that the Government does not have the power to regulate the allotment of advertisements by reducing the number of advertisements given to a newspaper. The Court also held that the Government cannot discriminate in the payment of pending bills for advertisements published in newspapers.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government has the power to regulate the allotment of advertisements to newspapers by reducing the number of advertisements given to a newspaper? 2. Whether the Government can discriminate in the payment of pending bills for advertisements published in newspapers? 3. Whether the Court can grant relief to the petitioner for the loss of advertisement revenue suffered by it?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government does not have the power to regulate the allotment of advertisements by reducing the number of advertisements given to a newspaper. The Court reasoned that such a power would be arbitrary and discriminatory and would violate the fundamental rights of the newspaper under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the Government cannot discriminate in the payment of pending bills for advertisements published in newspapers. The Court reasoned that such discrimination would be arbitrary and discriminatory and would violate the fundamental rights of the newspapers under Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. 3. The Court held that it cannot grant relief to the petitioner for the loss of advertisement revenue suffered by it. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had not suffered any loss as it was now receiving advertisements in the regular manner according to the policy in this connection.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the appeal in terms of its observations made in the judgment. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
KHANNA,C.J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the State of Assam and others against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge passed in Civil Rule No.1848 of 1993 on 4-4-94.
2. We have heard Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State of Assam assisted by Mr. A. C. Sarma, Government Advocate and Mr. P. K. Goswami, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A. C. Borbora and Mr. S. S. Goswami, Advocates appearing for the contesting respondents.
3. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the Court ordered the original records of the Government pertaining to this case be produced before the court in case the same are so required. It may also be mentioned that Mr. S. N. Bhuyan, learned Advocate General, Assam has filed before us an undertaking which has been signed by the Additional Director of Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Assam and the said document has also been taken on the record of the case. During the hearing of the Civil Rule, the State of Assam had not filed any affidavit-in-opposition despite time being granted by the Court.
4. The relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that the petitioner-respondent 1 is a private limited company which publishes an English daily -Sentinel. The petitioner-respondent 2 is the Printer and Publisher of the aforesaid newspaper. It is claimed that the paper has a circulation of about 42,000 and the paper is sold throughout the North-Eastern Region.
5. The newspapers which are being published get advertisement from the Government in accordance with the advertisement policy which is contained in Annexure A to the Civil Rule. In order to receive Government advertisement the daily newspaper must have a paid circulation at least 5000 copies with a minimum 325 issues in a year with 4 pages with print area of not less than 45 cm x 7 standard columns, devoting at least 60% of the print area for reading and other nonadvertisement materials. The petitioners-respondents claim that their newspaper Sentinel is covered under the aforesaid policy. The policy also prescribes that no Government department can directly issue advertisement to any newspaper and it is the Director of Information and Public Relation, Assam who issues the orders of publishing advertisement by various departments and the necessary funds for this purpose are allotted in the annual budget of the Directorate of Information and Public Relation and it is the Directorate which makes the payment of advertisement bills. The policy requires preparation of list of approved newspapers by the State Government for the purpose of giving advertisement and the paper printed by the petitioners-respondents Sentinel has been approved by the State Government.
6. The main grievance of the petitioners-respondents raised in the Civil Rule was that they were allotted less advertisement in the period starting from January to June 93. The charts have been annexed to the Civil Rule as Annexure B to D giving a detailed statement regarding allotment of Government Advertisements to various newspapers. The petitioners- respondents have stated in the Civil Rule that another English daily, namely, Assam Tribune, having similar publication and circulation or even lower category of dailies like North East Express and Assam Express have been allotted with much higher number of advertisements. During the period from January to June 93 the following figures have been given in respect of these newspapers: _
i). Assam Tribune - 507
ii). Assam Express - 226
iii). NE Times - 105
iv). Sentinel - 73
It was stated that on June 3, 1993, the Managing Director of the petitioner-respondent 1 wrote a letter to the fourth respondent-appellant about the drastic reduction of allotment of Government advertisement and brought to his notice that the other similarly situated local dailies are being favoured with high number of
